Regarding the recent gun bill defeat.
- Thread starter Taichiliberal
- Start date
An AR-15 IS a semi-automatic, fool......the M-16, the military version of that rifle is the assault weapon
Yet you think your opinion is, moron.
Keep running that dick sucker. You embarrass yourself each time you post.
You're using too many numbers for that fool to be able to keep up.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Since you don't have anyone advocating gun control on this thread doing what you say, that would make you out to be a liar.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
No one said that the AR-15 wasn't a semi-automatic, you simpleton. Learn to read!
As for the AR-15 classification:
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/a/Assault-Weapons.htm
And what it was originally designed for:
https://www.ar15.com/content/articles/history/birth.html
Does that mean you don't have a problem with someone owning an AR 15?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
given the FACT that you know jack shit about guns, this means you're just a bloviating idiot with zero clue about combat tactics. I say this with military and tactical training/experience.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
This is what, about the 6th claim to some form of expertise you've made on these boards over the years? Forgive me if I don't believe a word you say. As to "bloviating", only a complete neocon/teabagger/fibbertarian jackass would think a person defending their home from burglars needs a "combat tactic". You're not in the army, jackass. If someone breaks into your home and you have a gun, you can shoot them if you get the drop on them. A .38 revolver will kill them just as much as a shotgun or a semi-automatic rifle. Been that way since yer grand pappy's days....just ask any cop worth their salt.
The OP stands, and your just full of it as usual.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
this is the stupid shit we're talking about. I spent 6 years in the marines, but you won't believe that unless I post my DD214 or some stupid shit, and I know right off the bat you didn't ask a damned cop about combat tactics for a home intruder because any REAL cop worth their salt would KNOW that you approach every possible situation like that as combat and you use tactics.
just go away, jackass. tired of you revealing your ignorance to all and i'm definitely tired of responding to your stupidity.
dnsmith1935
Verified User
I thought it was more like 300 million, which would make it much better than 200 million guns. As guns have increased by 56% gun violence has gone down 49%. Looks good to me.
Last edited:
Yeah, but we're talking about the FOOL that called the AR-15 an assault rifle like the AK 47......I think it was you, fool...
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
I thought it was more like 300 million, which would make it much better than 200 million guns. As guns have increased by 56% gun violence has gone down 49%. Looks good to me.
Not sure why you felt you needed to edit my post; but I'll put it back up, just for grins.
I know its popular to beat up on, and scare everyone that big brother is reading all your emails and laughing, but literally none of it is true. Even with the snowden leaks.
Plus the 2nd Amendment is right there in the const. Where is it in the const that the govt can't read a cell phone message that was approved by congress/SCOTUS/Executive.?
F_Donald_Weldon
Verified User
In which case they were lying, or exhibiting their ignorance of the law.
As with any other gun buyer designated a prohibited person per the NICS background check, those on a no fly or watch list would have the right to appeal the designation, recognizing their comprehensive civil rights.
Background checks violate neither the Second nor Fifth Amendments.
Indeed, if the FBI cannot justify a denial as a consequence of a background check within three business days, the government may not stop the purchase.
That many conservative members of Congress are liars comes as no surprise, of course.
ORLY?
Where "per the NICS background check" AKA, "the law" (and I consider "the law" to be 18 U.S. Code § 922(g)(1-9)* and none other) is "those on the no fly or watch list" a criteria for the disablement of gun rights?
That's not how it works.
And that's NOT the question.
The question is narrowly focused on whether using a non-judicial circumstance like being placed on a "no fly or watch list" constitutes a legitimate criteria to impose a firearm purchase / possession disability. Every criteria in 922(g) involves the person having the ability to defend himself and be active in that defense. The "no fly or watch list" affords no such action. Thus it fails any test for use as a rights disabling criteria.
* from http://www.rip.uscourts.gov/rip/supervision/firearmpossession/FirearmPossessionProhibition.pdf
"Firearm Possession Prohibition
Federal law (18 U.S.C. § 922[g][1-9]) prohibits certain individuals from possessing firearms,
ammunition, or explosives. The penalty for violating this law is ten years imprisonment and/or a
$250,000 fine. Further, 18 U.S.C. 3565(b)(2) (probation) and 3583(g)(2) (supervised release)
makes it mandatory for the Court to revoke supervision for possession of a firearm.
Specifically, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1-9) prohibits the following from possessing, shipping/
transporting, or receiving any firearm or ammunition:
(1) a person convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment exceeding one year;
(2) a person who is a fugitive from justice;
(3) a person who is an unlawful user of or who is addicted to a controlled substance;
(4) a person who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been admitted
to a mental institution;
(5) an alien who is unlawfully in the United States or who has been admitted to the
United States under a nonimmigrant visa;
(6) a person who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable
conditions;
(7) a person who, having been a citizen of the United States, renounces his citizenship;
(8) a person subject to a court order that was issued after a hearing in which the person
participated, which order restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening
an intimate partner or partner’s child, and which order includes a finding that the
person is a credible threat to such partner or partner’s child, or by its terms prohibits
the use, attempted use or threatened use of such force against such partner or
partner’s child;
(9) a person who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
Possession of a firearm may be either actual or constructive. The latter has been defined as
follows: “Constructive possession exists when a person knowingly has the power and intention at
a given time of exercising dominion and control over the object or over the area in which the object
is locate....” (See U.S. v Booth, et.al. 111 F.3d 2 [1st Cir. September 1997]). If you know the
firearm is present in your residence, vehicle, etc., and if it can be shown that you have the ability to
access and exercise control over that firearm personally or through another individual, then you
could be considered to have constructive possession of the firearm. You would then be subject to
new criminal charges and/or revocation of supervision. For these reasons, all firearms are to be
removed from your residence during the term of supervision."
Federal law (18 U.S.C. § 922[g][1-9]) prohibits certain individuals from possessing firearms,
ammunition, or explosives. The penalty for violating this law is ten years imprisonment and/or a
$250,000 fine. Further, 18 U.S.C. 3565(b)(2) (probation) and 3583(g)(2) (supervised release)
makes it mandatory for the Court to revoke supervision for possession of a firearm.
Specifically, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1-9) prohibits the following from possessing, shipping/
transporting, or receiving any firearm or ammunition:
(1) a person convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment exceeding one year;
(2) a person who is a fugitive from justice;
(3) a person who is an unlawful user of or who is addicted to a controlled substance;
(4) a person who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been admitted
to a mental institution;
(5) an alien who is unlawfully in the United States or who has been admitted to the
United States under a nonimmigrant visa;
(6) a person who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable
conditions;
(7) a person who, having been a citizen of the United States, renounces his citizenship;
(8) a person subject to a court order that was issued after a hearing in which the person
participated, which order restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening
an intimate partner or partner’s child, and which order includes a finding that the
person is a credible threat to such partner or partner’s child, or by its terms prohibits
the use, attempted use or threatened use of such force against such partner or
partner’s child;
(9) a person who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
Possession of a firearm may be either actual or constructive. The latter has been defined as
follows: “Constructive possession exists when a person knowingly has the power and intention at
a given time of exercising dominion and control over the object or over the area in which the object
is locate....” (See U.S. v Booth, et.al. 111 F.3d 2 [1st Cir. September 1997]). If you know the
firearm is present in your residence, vehicle, etc., and if it can be shown that you have the ability to
access and exercise control over that firearm personally or through another individual, then you
could be considered to have constructive possession of the firearm. You would then be subject to
new criminal charges and/or revocation of supervision. For these reasons, all firearms are to be
removed from your residence during the term of supervision."
Last edited:
dnsmith1935
Verified User
No it doesn't. The AR-15 as sold in the US is NOT AN AUTOMATIC. The various weapons, like the M-16, are. When you learn the difference, get back to me. My 27 years on active duty gives me a technical edge over anti-gun nuts.
http://manual.americasarmy.com/index.php/U.S._Army_Weapons
dnsmith1935
Verified User
Yet the AR-15 is not nor has ever been an assault as sold to US persons, period. Amazing how irrelevant your thinking can be.
Your civil liberties link took us to anti-cun site with POLITICAL DEFINITIONS of assault weapons. It is total bullpoop and the writer has his head firmly implanted in his excremental orifice.
The ar-15 site is a description of how the M-16 was created and it was the assault rifle, NOT THE AR-15 Only idiots believe look a like weapons are equal to the original. Just like the stupid who accept political definitions of what a weapon. BTW, the AR-15 is great for thin skinned animals, even more so that the larger caliber 30-30 because of its hitting power, but not so good as a 30-06 for bigger stronger animals, like wild boar, elk, moose et al.
You can take your ignorance and shove it.
One more thing, whose "truth" is your tag line speaking of? Certainly not of the left wing extremists idiocy.
dnsmith1935
Verified User
What ever kills best is irrelevant. I want that gun! And I will use it in any perceived self defense, in defense of my family, and if the government becomes any more tyrannical than it is, in defense of my country. NEVER BRING A KNIFE TO A FIST FIGHT OR KNIFE FIGHT. Always bring a gun so the assailant cannot get close to you.
IE, don't lower yourself to the status of any militant, violent person may have in weaponry. Be sure to have more power. Never give an assailant even a small chance.
Oh yes! A bona fide AK-47 IS an assault weapon. An AK-47 look alike IS NOT AN ASSAULT WEAPON. The principle difference between an acceptable weapon and an assault weapon is its function, not its looks. Full Auto is, semi-auto is not.
Last edited: